Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
A study of business boards by Stanford University yielded the following results:
Only one-third (36%) of board members surveyed believe their company does a very good job of accurately assessing the performance of individual directors.
Almost half (46%) believe their boards tolerate dissent.
Nearly three quarters of directors (74%) agree that board directors allow personal or past experiences to dominate their perspective.
And, perhaps most significant, the typical director believes that at least one fellow director should be removed from the board because the individual is not effective. *
Given that many of these business boards have the financial power to employ legal counsel or consultants to conduct a rigorous impartial evaluation, what can a nonprofit board, with limited financial resources, do to make sure that the board and its members are being fairly evaluated to drive change?
A Nonprofit Board Must Focus On Its Organization’s Impacts
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
“One of the key functions of a (nonprofit) board of directors is to oversee (not micromanage) the CEO, ensuring that (stakeholders) are getting the most from their investments.” * State and Federal compliance regulations have been developed to make certain that boards have an obligation to represent stakeholders. These include the community, donors, foundations and clients, but not the staff as some nonprofit boards have come to believe. The failure of nonprofit boards, as reported frequently by local national blog sites, show something is wrong. Following are some inherent problems that derail boards from focusing on impacts.
Once Again! The Possibility Of Fraud – A Nonprofit Board Alert
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
“According to a Washington Post analysis of the filings from 2008-2012 … of more than 1,000 nonprofit organizations, … there was a ‘significant diversion’ of nonprofit assets, disclosing losses attributed to theft, investment frauds, embezzlement and other unauthorized uses of funds.” The top 20 organizations in the Post’s analysis had a combined potential total loss of more than a half-billion dollars. *
One estimate, by Harvard University’s Houser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, suggests that fraud losses among U.S. nonprofits are approximately $40 billion a year. **
Vigilant nonprofit boards might prevent many of these losses. Here’s how:
Solarwinds and Target and others may seem far afield from the concerns of nonprofit directors, except for the giants in the area, like AARP. However, think about this hypothetical scenario.
A group of high school students hacked into the computer system of a local nonprofit offering mental health services and gain access to records of clients, perhaps even placing some of the records of other teenagers on the internet. Considering the recent introductions of new AI tools, the power of immature teenagers and adults to initiate Cyber Security (CS) problems seems unlimited.
What due care obligations did the board need to forestall the above situation? A move to recruit directors with special expertise in information technology or cyber security would be nonproductive. A nonprofit director has broader responsibilities such as the overview of management, approval of budgets, fostering management and staff growth etc. Similarly, when social media became a prominent issue a few years ago, boards debated the advisability of seeking directors with that specific kind of background. Today, a consultant with management is likely to provide guidance to directors on these issues.
After listening to a group of cyber security experts discuss for-profit challenges in this area, I have the following suggestions on how nonprofit boards might respond to similar types of challenges.
1. Carefully “wall off” all confidential information – Have management be certain that private information such as health records, are encrypted and separated from operating data that may be considered public in a nonprofit environment. 2. Review D&O and other liability policies – Determine whether or not the D&O policy protects directors and managers from CS intrusions. (It likely does not, but I understand that some carriers may offer some protection along with smaller policies.) It is clear that most general liability policies do not protect the organization against CS. 3. Board Encouragement – Devote some meeting time, perhaps 10 minutes, to a discussion of the CS topics so that management and staff are aware of the board’s concerns on the subject and will take action when necessary. Appropriate due care actions like frequent password changes should become routine. Some checklists are available online, suggesting questions directors might pose to raise awareness on the topic and avoid potential CS breaches. 4. Can third party payer help? – Many nonprofits deal with third party payers with sophisticated CS systems and may offer the nonprofit some advice or assistance. 5. Education and training of employers – Many CS crimes have been successful because employees have violated or forget to effectively protect their working accounts and information. Proper education and training can help reduce these types of lapses. 6. Finance & Audit Committees – Recent data indicate that only 20% of nonprofits have a CS vulnerability assessment in place and only about the same proportion have a plan in place should a CS breach take place . * Due care responsibilities seem to be missing among a large portion of nonprofits.
If a nonprofit, like the one described, is attacked, not only will records be compromised, but also the reputation of the agency will be destroyed, probably along with the nonprofit organization itself. SolarWinds and Target may be able to survive such an attack, but the typical nonprofit may not.
How Prepared Are Board Members for the Challenges of the Nonprofit Culture?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Given that the typical tenure of a new board member is six years. In addition, a new board member’s intention may be to make his/her unique contribution to the organization’s progress before he/s rotates off the board and is supplanted by another “new” director. With these factors in mind, I estimate that many volunteers enter the boardroom with little understanding of nonprofit culture. Even those who have served previously on business boards may initially spend valuable time in accommodating to the nuances of nonprofit practices and priorities before being poised to make contributions to the “greater good” that nonprofits create. Following are some areas that are endemic to nonprofits:
• Mission is Impact: Whereas the central mission of corporate boards is to make money for shareholders, nonprofit organizations, with their multitude of diverse missions, are commonly invested in impact. Most nonprofit directors, managers and staff are committed to helping the nonprofit organization fulfill its unique mission. I have seen staff and managers, often with highly marketable skills, remain with nonprofits despite financial pressure to move on. Dedication to the organization’s raison d’etre is a strong motivator that keeps good people working towards its accomplishment. Both types of organizations can report financial results quarterly, but nonprofits struggle to measure such long-term mission outcomes as ” … enhanced quality of life, elevated artistic sensitivity, community commitment and successful advocacy… .” The elusive nonprofit challenge becomes how to measure impact in order to assess mission fulfillment. (http://bit.ly/OvF4ri)
• A Slower Pace: The pace of the decision process is decidedly slower in nonprofits than in the corporate board. This can occur for a number of possible reasons. It could be that the NFP’s charter may purposely set up requirements that preclude hasty and possibly unwise decisions—by mandating a period of deliberation before an action is formally voted upon. It may possibly be that the organization recognizes that it has insufficient staff for fast implementation. And there have been a number of cases when a nonprofit board has had to defer action because a succession of meetings has not produced a voting quorum!
• Get or Give Obligations: Nonprofit board members are said to stand “10 feet tall” in response to their commitment and service to the organization. The value of their time, energy and expertise is immeasurable. Another important aspect of good board management is ensuring the availability of adequate funds. To this end, many nonprofits ask board members to help generate and/or make annual donations themselves within the parameters of their resources. Commonly, directors are urged to make a “stretch” gift– and there are times when they are even requested to make their largest donation to that organization or seek donations or services from others. Some directors resist this type of pressure. But even with a development staff taking proactive development responsibility, it is still the board’s responsibility to pursue funds by every appropriate means.
• Board Chair, CEO and Staff Relationships: This triumvirate of positions makes up the lifeline of any nonprofit organization. Both Board Chair and CEO have their own designated spheres of influence that sometimes succumb to a board culture that is resistant to change. The staff has its own set of issues related to the nonprofit’s “flat” structure. Here are some cultural breakdowns in internal relationships that can be disruptive to the organization.
The NFP Board Chair is probably more important than in an FP organization. The rank and file board members often defer to the current chair on proposed actions– generally to avoid conflict, which might impact donations or hobble potential networking efforts. This hesitancy to challenge the leadership cannot only impede progress but is apt to give the board a “rubber stamp” image..
The CEO will be the keystone to implementing a high-performance culture in a nonprofit organization. Boards are frequently resistant to consider replacing a CEO as long as he/s is producing at a “C” or “B” level. “If it’s not broken, why fix it?” is the view, albeit a short-term response. Understandably, the frequently shifting body of board members finds that maintaining the status quo is less disruptive. It is not, however, always in the best interest of the organization and its potential to grow and serve clients.
The Staff, unlike in the FP hierarchy, is structurally often only one or two levels below the board, thus well attuned to the frequent rotations of board personnel. A continual shifting body of directors makes staff members vulnerable to changing priorities, which can significantly impact their work. Nonprofits should offer many opportunities for staff and board to communicate appropriately—to interact in informal settings and on board-staff committees. But creeping board micromanagement needs to be avoided as a danger for nonprofits.
Summary: Once acclimated to the unique challenges of the nonprofit culture, serving on the board can provide an exceptionally rewarding experience. Board members will have a chance to work with others who are dedicated to the work of serving people with significant personal needs, improving the positive contributions of professional and trade associations and bringing value and enrichment to their communities.
Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it—be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver that service is often not so clear. An executive committee, for example, can overstep its authority by assuming powers beyond its scope of responsibility. I encountered this in one executive committee when the group developed a strategic plan in an interim period where there was no permanent ED. The board then refused to share it with the incoming executive. In another instance, an executive committee took it upon itself to appoint members of the audit committee—including outsiders who were unknown to the majority on the board.
The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this is difficult for nonprofits to achieve:
A typical nonprofit board member is often recruited from a pool of friends, relatives and colleagues, and will serve, on a median average, for four to six years. This makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate at meetings (why risk conflicts with board colleagues?). Directors also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-to-day issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability.
The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. In some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to pervade the governmental environment, allowing the board and executive committee to involve themselves in areas that should be delegated to management.
The executive team is a broad partnership of peers –board members, those appointed to the executive committee and the CEO. The executive committee is legally responsible to act for the board between meetings–the board must ratify its decisions. But unchecked, the executive committee can assume dictatorial powers whose conclusions must be rubber-stamped by the board.
Mitigating Oversight Barriers: There is often little individual board members can do to change the course when the DNA has become embedded in the organization. The tradition of micromanagement, for example, is hard to reverse, especially when the culture is continually supported by a succession of like-minded board chairs and CEOs. No single board member can move these barriers given the brevity of the board terms. But there are a few initiatives that three or four directors, working in tandem, can take to move the organization into a high-performance category.
Meetings: At the top of every meeting agenda there needs to be listed at least one policy or strategy topic. When the board discussion begins to wander, the chair should remind the group that they are encroaching on an area that is management’s responsibility. One board I observed wasted an hour’s time because the chair had failed to intercept the conversation in this manner. Another board agreed to change its timing of a major development event, then spent valuable meeting time suggesting formats for the new event—clearly a management responsibility to develop.
“New Age” Board Members: While millennial directors may be causing consternation in some legacy-bound nonprofit and business organizations, certain changes in nonprofits are noteworthy. Those board members in the 43- and- under age bracket need some targeted nurturing. I encountered a new young person who energized the board with her eagerness to try to innovative development approaches. She was subsequently appointed to the executive committee, deepening her view of the organization and primed her for board chair leadership.
Board members who understand the robust responsibilities of a 21st century board need to accept responsibilities for mentoring these new age board people, despite their addictions to electronic devices.
Experienced Board Members: Board members who have served on other high-performance boards have the advantage of being familiar with modern governance processes and are comfortable in supporting change. They are needed to help boards, executive committees and CEOs to move beyond the comfortable bounds of the past. They will be difficult to recruit, but they are required ingredients for successful boards.
NEW Projects: Boards and the CEO must be bold and try new approaches to meet client needs. For example instead of going through a complete planning process for a new program the board must ask management to complete a series of small experiments to test the program. When a series of results are positive, the nonprofit can work on a plan to implement the program.
Conclusion: Individual board members working alone will probably become frustrated in trying to contend with the three overview barriers discussed. But working with three or four colleagues, over time, on a tandem basis, they can make inroads on the barriers. Meetings can become more focused on policies/strategies, new age board members can become more quickly productive, experienced board members can become role models and new programs and other projects can be more quickly imitated via the use of small scale experiments.
The “Compliant” Nonprofit Board—A CEO Takes Charge Like a Founder!
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
According to BoardSource, “ ‘Founderitis’ and ‘founder’s syndrome’ are terms often used to describe a founder’s resistance to change. When founderitis surfaces, the source of the dilemma often is a founder’s misunderstanding of his or her role in an evolving organization.” * I would like to suggest that a nonprofit CEO also might suffer from the “founderitis illness,” sometimes with the board only being mildly or completely unaware of it.
Board Member Tenure versus CEO
The average board member tenure is six years (e.g., two three year terms) as compared with the average almost 13-year CEO tenure. ** The CEO has twice as longer period to influence polices and strategies. More importantly, she/h has more opportunity and time to acquire background knowledge and influence the organization’s culture.
“CEO Founderitis”—Typical Board Members & CEO Behaviors
The board is a dependent one, cancels or reschedules major committee/board meeting when the CEO can’t attend.
The CEO is overly verbose in presenting background information at meetings.
Concurrently, the number of board member comments is limited at most meetings.
The CEO places limits on the types of contacts the staff can have with board members, in the name of avoiding staff “end runs. “
The CEO carefully covets outside relationships and donor relationships. Board members are only marginally involved in fund development.
The Executive Committee does not challenge the CEO when setting the agenda.
The nonprofit board is satisfied with marginal gains each year, without seeking broader challenges to provide enhanced client services.
The CEO’s performance isn’t rigorously assessed.
The board rarely, if ever, overviews CEO and staff talent successions.
Board actions and activities are not rigorously reviewed or discussed.
Led by the CEO, Board resistance to change is substantial.
What should the board do if the CEO takes charge like a founder?
Three Options:
Does Nothing: This assumes the CEO is performing reasonably well in developing positive program impacts, not outcomes. (i.e, Program objectives can be achieved, but they can have little impacts on clients.)
The CEO and Board are satisfied with programoutcomes as performance measures. As a result, the organization inadvertently may not be innovative. In addition, long-term organizational sustainability may be compromised. There may be long-term challenges on the horizon that go beyond the typical three to five year planning cycles.
A majority of board members may feel comfortable with this option because the CEO acts strongly, even though he/s occasionally may encroach on a board’s perogrative.
Makes Changes: This will probably require the CEO & Board to change, modifying some of the behaviors listed above. The CEO then forms a partnership with a changing independent board.
Some board members will be satisfied the status quo, little is required of them. But others may want to remove a CEO who leads like a founder. Internal conflict will likely arise on both sides to delay or abort change.
A Solution? Don’t rock the boat. Only when the CEO, especially one with long tenure, suffering from “founderitis” makes a graceful exit will there be opportunity for change. Hopefully, the new CEO will develop a partnership culture with the board.
Wanted: Nonprofit CEOs with Entrepreneurial People Skills
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
The need for superior leadership skills is as critical to CEOs in nonprofits as it is in the entrepreneurial world. Following are four such skills and the unique challenges they bring when employed in the nonprofit environment.
The CEO’s Power of Persuasion
A nonprofit CEO and the board must take the lead in creating the organization’s mission, vision and values. However, since the board majority is usually composed of volunteers who are seldom involved in the day-to-day implementation of the organization’s mission, it becomes the responsibility of the CEO to present viable options for the future — and then to effectively share the board-approved “vision” with three discrete audiences: the board, professional staff and other stakeholders. But…
Board members, in the roles as part-time overseers, often do not have the time to critically evaluate alternatives when presented, particularly if a revised mission is under consideration.
Nonprofit staffs tend to be conservative, especially when change may jeopardize their positions. (e.g. “Don’t change the program, the position that may be dropped can be yours!”)
And foundations, donors, and supporters, who are possibly considering funding requests from other nonprofits, need to be approached by a CEO who is equipped with outstanding people skills.
While business organizations have somewhat similar challenges, obviously their revenue sources are not dependent on financial gifts.
The Right Hires
Just as in business, the process of judicious hiring endlessly challenges a nonprofit CEO. Nonprofit salary levels are simply not competitive with those of established commercial organizations, especially in the area of hard-to-find skills such as finance or IT. But these challenges can be overcome! I have seen nonprofit CEOs develop a collegial working atmosphere in their search for employees, resulting in new personnel who are not only dedicated to the mission but feel encouraged to exercise their own creative potential.
Face of the Organization
The nonprofit CEO, like his entrepreneurial business counterpart, must be the top marketing executive who is the face of the organization. While board members can assist with promotion, CEOs are the leaders to whom stakeholders and employees look to promote the organization’s impacts. Alternatively, they must take the blame for failures. No longer should a nonprofit CEO be able to use the old excuse with a failed program, “The board forced me to take the action.” But to shepherd an entrepreneurial CEO, the board needs to be able to tolerate some failures as long as they were based on reasonable “business judgment.” No one does their job with unfettered perfection.
Growing the Organization
If a nonprofit decides to expand the scope of the organization, the skill sets needed in a CEO are quite different from those needed to maintain a status quo operation. Rarely can the executive who simply “minds the store” adjust to the complexities of the new environment and must be replaced or moved elsewhere. A nonprofit’s commitment to expansion is both exciting and terrifying. In any case, it demands a nonprofit CEO who, in partnership with a supportive board, can handle the requisite financial development and continual networking with stakeholders.
How Can Nonprofits Accommodate To External Influences? Some Field Observations
By Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Ruth McCambridge, former editor of Nonprofit Quarterly, pointed out “Our organizational management, (board) styles and structures are affected by the four external influences.” See paraphrased bolded items below. (http://bit.ly/1HSwrZY)
Following are some specific field observations I have encountered that, over several decades, support her model relating to external influences.
The nonprofit’s mission field: McCambridge points out that arts organizations have dual have leadership models—artistic and business. However, unless specified which has final authority, the system can lead to continual conflict between the two; the artistic leader wanting the most authentic productions and the business leader concerned with budget realities. The final authority is often determined by which leader has the CEO title.
Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
Recruiting and retaining able people for nonprofit careers has always been a challenge. Salary levels have not been comparable to business organizations and some government posts. Many small and medium sized nonprofits have frontline personnel organizationally located only two levels below the Board of Directors. Consequently, career paths can appear stymied.
The employment situation has changed for two population cohorts. They are: some millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and those in the Generation Z cohort (born between 1997 and 2012).
Nonprofit Management 